We Have to Embrace Apocalypse If We're Going to Get Serious About Sticking Around on This Planet

[MindMover]

Here’s my experience in speaking apocalyptically about the serious challenges humans face: No matter how carefully I craft a statement of concern about the future of humans, no matter how often I deny a claim to special gifts of prognostication, no matter how clearly I reject supernatural explanations or solutions, I can be certain that a significant component of any audience will refuse to take me seriously. Some of those people will make a joke about “Mr. Doom and Gloom.” Others will suggest that such talk is no different than conspiracy theorists’ ramblings about how international bankers, secret cells of communists, or crypto-fascists are using the United Nations to create a one-world government. Even the most measured and careful talk of the coming dramatic change in the place of humans on Earth leads to accusations that one is unnecessarily alarmist, probably paranoid, certainly irrelevant to serious discussion about social and ecological issues. In the United States, talk of the future is expected to be upbeat, predicting expansion and progress, or at least maintenance of our “way of life.”

Apocalyptic thinking allows us to let go of those fanciful visions of the future. As singer/songwriter John Gorka puts it: “The old future’s gone/We can’t get to there from here.” The comfortable futures that we are comfortable imagining are no longer available to us because of the reckless way we’ve been rolling the dice; there is nothing to save us from ourselves. Our task is to deal with our future without delusions of deliverance, either divine or technological. This planet is not a way station in a journey to some better place; it is our home, the only home we will know. We will make our peace with ourselves, each other, and the larger living world here.

http://www.alternet.org/books/we-have-embrace-apocalypse-if-were-going-get-serious-about-sticking-around-planet

[daleanime]

1. kick, kick, kick.....

[AverageJoe90]

2. Unrec.

I'm sorry, but the LAST thing we need is this kind of thinking taking hold; indeed, it should in fact be noted that such talk truly is QUITE similar to the rumblings of an imminent police state, or rise of a Satanic/Masonic/etc. New World Order, etc.....and, not only is it *quite* insane, but it plays right into the very same hands of the people we're trying to fight against. Yes, I am referring to the (actual!) climate deniers, and the oligarchs who manipulate and/or fund them.

Make no mistake: "Apocalyptic thinking" isn't just a delusion in and itself; it's downright fucking DANGEROUS. We gain *nothing* from engaging in such a milieu. Not one whit.

[cprise]

3. "deniers, and the oligarchs who manipulate and/or fund them..."

If oligarchs are in control of the system, then that's an admission to the conditions of apocalypse right there. It means people will have to wake up to a reality that they were not inculcated to believe (unless you think oligarchs will do the right thing and either govern responsibly or relinquish their power on their own).

The word "apocalypse" is associated with people who peddle superstition, and maybe that is a reason to use a different word instead... but the progressive and liberal thinkers are visibly converging on a rational interpretation of it, pretty much all of them. To me, it means radical change in understanding and action.

Maybe you and I should return to this thread on Nov. 5 and share some thoughts about where the throngs of maximally-entertained consumers are taking us.

[AverageJoe90]

4. Here's the problem.

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 04:30 AM - Edit history (1)

The word "apocalypse" is associated with people who peddle superstition, and maybe that is a reason to use a different word instead... but the progressive and liberal thinkers are visibly converging on a rational interpretation of it, pretty much all of them. To me, it means radical change in understanding and action.

I'm sorry, but no. There is no fucking "rational" interpretation. *Not one*. That's a fact. And who is this "all of them" that you speak of? John Greer? Or Robert Hansen, who wrote this junk? Who?

[cprise]

6. And who are you to judge who is rational

...tossing around adhoms and invective like that? It didn't work when you were in E/E, either.

If you want examples of notables who are speaking 'apocalyptically', here are a few:

Bill Moyers:

Moyers responded: &quot 1) We have to figure out how to have a morally-based conversation about politics and economics. If it's all about money and return on investment and stock shares and all that, instead of what kind of society works best for those who don't have such "goods", we're finished as a democracy, because some people will be able to buy anything they want and vast numbers of others will be unable to afford what they need. (2) The corruption of power and money is so pervasive and systemic that we have to take it on at every level, which requires that (3) There has to be a broad-based movement for democracy that mirrors and exceeds what Bill McKibben, 350.org and kindred spirits like Naomi Klein have built to reverse global warming."

Naomi Klein: Writes about escalating disasters from capitalism

Barbara Boxer:
Our Planet's Primal Scream...

Amy Goodman, Cornel West, et al discussing "Why Revolution Now" at the Left Forum

Chris Hedges: Openly calling for (hopefully peaceful) revolution

Noam Chomsky: Calls similar to Chris Hedges


These people are talking in ways that evoke a real emergency and open the door to a break with the status quo.

[AverageJoe90]

7. Re: "And who are you to judge who is rational".....

There was no "judging" going on there, I'm afraid. It was just the cold hard truth.

Moyers responded: &quot 1) We have to figure out how to have a morally-based conversation about politics and economics. If it's all about money and return on investment and stock shares and all that, instead of what kind of society works best for those who don't have such "goods", we're finished as a democracy, because some people will be able to buy anything they want and vast numbers of others will be unable to afford what they need. (2) The corruption of power and money is so pervasive and systemic that we have to take it on at every level, which requires that (3) There has to be a broad-based movement for democracy that mirrors and exceeds what Bill McKibben, 350.org and kindred spirits like Naomi Klein have built to reverse global warming."

This isn't exactly "apocalyptic", cprise. And, also, revolution does not automatically = apocalypse, and pretty much everyone knows that. So why are you pushing this clearly faulty narrative? Do you simply just have a strange and unorthodox view of things in this regard(which isn't meant as a personal attack, though it *is* true), or is there more to it?

[cprise]

8. From wiktionary.org:

apocalypse (plural apocalypses)

1. A revelation. [from 14th c.]
The early development of Perl 6 was punctuated by a series of apocalypses by Larry Wall.

2. (Christianity) The unveiling of events prophesied in the Revelation; the second coming and the end of life on Earth; global destruction. [from 19th c.]

3. A disaster; a cataclysmic event. [from 19th c.]


I understand why you feel threatened about this becoming part of the discourse, but at some point you have to accept the state of affairs such as 50% of all wildlife disappearing since 1970, or how globalist oligarchy has taken over the press and government, etc. These are disasters coming to light.

You can't have your late-20th-century normalcy back because people have to acknowledge that the sh!t is hitting the fan. (I'd even guess you are young enough not to have really experienced that normalcy, only its after-image in the media and collective mind.)

[AverageJoe90]

9. Nice try. Nice try.

But no cigar. The fact that you continue to try to bullshit your way thru this clearly already shows that trying to bring sense into this conversation was a pointless endeavor.

I may not exactly be a rose-colored glasses super optimist, but at least I try to stay grounded in realistic thinking, unlike the doomsters around this place, who push every single scare-mongering piece they think they can get away with without being called out on it en masse. And unfortunately, for those of us on the rational sidee of things, there aren't many who DO call this B.S. out, it seems. But I won't stop, now, or ever.

[Darb]

10. Do you see any threat at all from wealth concentration, election fraud,

climate change, corporate media control, multi-national behemoths beholden to nothing but themselves, anything? I hope so.

Do you propose any action at all?

Curious minds want to know.

[AverageJoe90]

11. Yes, I do, from pretty much all of these.

But I'm just pointing out that engaging in "apocalyptic" thinking does no real good for us in the long run.

Honestly, right now, the simplest answer I got for you is, GOTV. Vote for what and who you believe in. Spread the word.

[cprise]

12. (Irrational) Apocalyptic thinking has fed or lead to these disasters

A rational response is to acknowledge that irrational beliefs have brought us near to some points of no return... that they are self-fulfilling prophecies which demand the mismanagement of humar affairs.

But I certainly agree about GOTV.

[MindMover]

5. change has to be radical because the sickness is too deep ...

and the consumers are bought and paid for ...

[Ampersand Unicode]

13. I embrace it because I don't want to stick around on this planet

The words "Stop the world; I want to get off" come to mind.

America is over. Freedom is over. Civilization just turned the corner to the point of no return. It's been on life support since November of 1963 and officially died on Tuesday.